SC: Courts can void pres’l appointments if unqualified

The Supreme Court (SC) declared over the weekend that the lower courts can void presidential appointments when appointees do not meet certain requisite qualifications.

In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Cancio Garcia, the high court denied the petition for review filed by retired Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) head Josue Engano.

Engano was questioning the Nov. 22, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the ruling of the Quezon City regional trial court declaring his appointment as BJMP chief "null and void" for failing to meet the minimum qualification standards set by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Quezon City RTC’s Jan. 21, 2003 resolution denying Engano’s motion for reconsideration.

"The two courts below were correct in asserting their respective jurisdictions over void appointments. While an appointment is an essentially discretionary executive powers, it is subject to the limitation that the appointee should possess none of the disqualifications but all the qualifications required by law. Where the law prescribes certain qualifications for a given office or position, courts may determine whether the appointee has the requisite qualifications, absent which, his right or title thereto may be declared void," the high court said.

Court records showed that since July 1999, Chief Superintendent Arturo Alit occupied the position of deputy chief of the BJMP. On Mar. 29, 2001, Alit was designated as BJMP’s officer-in-charge following the resignation of then BJMP director Maj. Gen. Aquilino Jacob Jr.

During the same period, Engano was the BJMP’s senior jail superintendent.

Upon issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 4 from the Office of the President, the chief directorate for personnel of the BJMP submitted to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) selection board a list of eligible candidates for the position of BJMP director.

Of the eleven candidates interviewed, the Board ranked Alit as first, being the only one who fully met the CSC’s standards for the position of BJMP director — in particular, his one-year experience as chief superintendent.

Consequently, then Interior and Local Government Secretary Jose Lina recommended the appointment of Alit as BJMP director.

However, despite Lina’s recommendation, President Arroyo instead appointed Engano on Sept. 6, 2001.

After being sworn into office, Engano assumed the post of BJMP director on Sept. 27, 2001.

This prompted Alit to file quo warranto proceedings before the Quezon City RTC on Sept. 28, 2001, claiming that Engano’s appointment was highly irregular and illegal because he lacked the minimum qualifications required for the BJMP post.

The lower court denied Alit’s plea for a temporary restraining order and set the case for hearing on his application for prohibition and injunction.

On Oct. 2, 2001, Lina was informed that Engano’s appointment as BJMP director was held in abeyance pending the resolution of the legal issues raised by the DILG involving his qualifications.

On Oct. 8, 2001, the Quezon City RTC ordered the Office of the President to definitely indicate whether or not it is appointing Engano as permanent BJMP chief or retaining Alit as officer-in-charge.

In the same order, the lower court issued a cease and desist order restraining Alit and Engano from performing and discharging the duties of BJMP director and designated Lina to serve as BJMP chief for a period of 20 days.

Lina took over as acting BJMP director and on Oct. 29, 2001, the Quezon RTC declared Engano’s appointment as void for not possessing the minimum qualifications required by law for the post of BJMP director.

Engano elevated the case to the CA, which affirmed the lower court’s ruling on Nov. 22, 2002.

Engano retired on May 13, 2003 after reaching the mandatory retirement age and Mrs. Arroyo appointed Alit as BJMP director.

In his petition before the High Court, Engano questioned whether his compulsory retirement rendered his petition moot and academic and whether he is entitled to salary deferential, emoluments, rata, allowances, rank of director and all benefits attached to the position of BJMP director.

He also said he is entitled to moral, nominal, exemplary and corrective damages from Alit and Lina.

The SC said all questions on the validity of Engano’s previous appointment become moot because of his mandatory retirement.

Engano’s "money claim allegedly arising from his failure to assume the position of (BJMP director) damages is untenable. A public office is not a property within the context of the due process guarantee of the Constitution. There is no such thing as a vested interest in a public office, let alone an absolute right to hold it. Except constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in a public office or its salary. It is only when salary has already been earned or accrued that said salary becomes private property and entitled to the protection of due process," the High Court said.

The SC said the right to salary and other emoluments arising from public employment is based on one’s valid appointment or election to the office itself and accrues from the date of actual commencement of the discharge of official duties.

The SC noted that Engano, despite lacking qualifications, was appointed as BJMP director and performed his duties from Sept. 27, 2001 to Oct. 2, 2001 when the appointing authority recalled his appointment owing to some legal issues raised against his qualifications.

"In all, therefore, petitioner Engano served as head of the BJMP for six days only, but as a de facto officer at best. And while a de facto officer is entitled to some form of compensation, respondents Secretary Lina and Alit cannot be held personally liable for petitioner’s claim for salary, rata and other benefits. The BJMP cannot also be compelled to pay since it was not a party in the petition below for quo warranto, nor in the appellate proceedings before the CA," the SC said.

It said Engano is not also entitled to damages because there was no evidence that Lina and Alit willfully, arbitrarily, baselessly and wrongfully acted.

"It is obvious that both, in good faith, believed that Engano was unqualified for the contested position, as was subsequently found to be the case by the trial court and then by the CA. Lina’s assumption of the post in a temporary capacity during the pendency of the quo warranto suit was valid as it was, in fact, pursuant to the trial court’s order. Private respondent Alit, needless to stress, was also well within his rights in challenging petitioner’s eligibility to the post," the SC said.